Cherry Street Project Costs Soar In Bayside Housing Proposal

by | Jun 23, 2021 | General | 8 comments

Bayside Housing wants $1.8 million from Jefferson County to complete and expand the Cherry Street Project. $1.6 million more than has already been spent would go into finishing the 70-year old Carmel Building, which has been sitting vacant and open to the elements for over four years. The total final cost of that building alone would exceed $3 million. In addition, Bayside wants $300,000 from the City of Port Townsend, and $500,000 from an unspecified block grant.

Bayside proposes to contribute $200,000 of its own money, for a total cost of $2.8 million for its new vision for the 1.5 acre property. Bayside’s proposal was submitted with supporting documents to the BOCC for its 6/21/21 meeting, and may be read at pages 457-462 of the correspondence file. Here is the cover letter:

The Carmel House would provide 12 bedrooms through 4 two bedroom units and four small one bedroom units. The total square footage of the building, as reported by the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader, is about 5,000 square feet. The Port Townsend Free Press previously reported that this “affordable” housing project was already one of the most expensive developments on the Quimper Peninsula. Under Bayside’s proposal, the cost would exceed $600 per square foot.

Bayside’s estimate of what it would take to rehab the Carmel House is $600,000 higher than the estimate provided by Homeward Bound Community Land Trust to the Port Townsend City Council in November 2019, when it said at least another $1 million was needed. Homeward Bound had been given the land and building in 2017 and a generous loan from the city. It defaulted in July 2020 and the city reclaimed the project. City taxpayers remain on the hook for the more than $1.4 million in principal and interest on the bond the city floated to raise the funds. Public records show that the loan to Homeward Bound contained a hidden interest subsidy of more than $400,000. Because Homeward Bound never paid a cent of its debt, taxpayers have been paying down the full indebtedness since 2018.

The project would be transferred free of any debt to Bayside. With the additional $1.6 million of county money going into the building plus the $1.4 million city-absorbed indebtedness factored in, the total cost of rehabbing the old building would come to more than $3 million. The city has already sunk over $500,000 in the building to bring it here from Victoria, B.C. and to put it on a foundation. That amount would be included in the $3 million final cost for the Carmel Building.

These figures do not include the cost of the land, valued in 2017 at $600,000, or other miscellaneous expenditures by the city for utility and project management work. In an October 2, 2020, report we calculated the cost of the project as of that date at $2,329,961. That was still $1 million short of the Homeward Bound’s estimated cost to complete, and is $1.6 million short of Bayside’s latest estimate of cost to completion. Our figure included the $600,000 value of land given by the city to Homeward Bound, which would again be donated, this time to Bayside Housing.

In addition to rehabbing the Carmel House, Bayside proposes to build two six room “boarding houses” on the property, at a combined cost of $850,000. That is the same number of rooms, newly constructed, as would be available in the old Carmel House, but for $2.15 million less. 

Bayside is not proposing a contract, under which it would be responsible for completion of the building by a date certain and built to plans and standards approved by the county. It is simply asking for millions of dollars with the promise that it will provide “affordable” housing. Its contractor estimates that if the money is provided promptly the proposed project would be completed within the first half of 2022. Bayside’s letter does not identify the contractor or reveal whether it has gone through any sort of competitive bidding process.

Bayside submitted letters of support from Dove House, Jefferson Community Foundation and Oxford House, an international program of sober living communities.  The organizations did not commit to any financial support.

At present, the land and the building are owned by the City of Port Townsend. City Council directed the City Manager in September 2020 to negotiate a handover to Bayside Housing of the Cherry Street Project. The City Manager ignored a $1 million cash offer from Keith and Jean Marzan of Port Townsend to bail the city out of the failed project, with the pledge that they would construct affordable housing at their own expense on the site. The City Manager told them he had been directed to deal exclusively with Bayside.

The original estimated cost of rehabbing the Carmel House with the addition of the four basement apartments was under $400,000, with a projected completion date in September or October 2017. That estimate and schedule were known to have been “bogus” by Homeward Bound’s leadership and city officials. See also, “Multimillion Dollar Fraud on Taxpayers: The Cherry Street Project Unmasked,” PTFP, 7/27/20.

In a May 28, 2018 article we identified a 36 bedroom Port Townsend apartment building, built in the 1990s, on the market for $1.5 million. That now looks like an even better bargain. But instead of securing that property, or pursuing less costly approaches, such as manufactured housing, the city kept sinking more money into the old Carmel Building structure.

The COVID Funds: The County’s, Not the City’s

Bayside is seeking $1.8 million of the county’s “COVID funds.” The county received $6.3 million under the American Rescue Plan Act. These funds are restricted to being spent on five categories of projects: (1) public health, including COVID-19 mitigation efforts, behavioral health care, and public health and safety staff; (2) negative economic impacts caused by the pandemic to groups including workers, households, industries and the public sector; (3) to replace public sector revenue lost to the pandemic; (4) premium pay to support essential workers whose health is at risk from exposure in critical infrastructure areas; and (5) investment in infrastructure such as water, sewer, wastewater, storm water facilities, and broadband access and infrastructure.

The City of Port Townsend has not offered to spend any of its $2.744 million in ARPA funds on its Cherry Street Project. The City Manager has indicated that at least half the funds will be used to make up for lost municipal revenue. Bayside’s proposal does not seek any of the City’s “COVID Funds.”

The $1.8 million requested by Bayside would be close to a third of the county’s ARPA funds. Jefferson County would be bailing the city out of its troubled Cherry Street Project, after the city had already rejected a $1 million cash offer to do the same.

Red Flags

There are certainly legal questions about whether the county can simply give $1.8 million to a private entity for a construction project on land it does not own. Where are the legally binding guarantees, the enforcement mechanisms, the claw-back provisions, the security for county taxpayers? If Bayside fails to perform, what recourse is there? How is the county assured it is getting the lowest price from a qualified contractor without a request for proposal and a competitive bidding process?

Bayside’s executive director, Gary Keister, is a convicted felon, who served time in federal prison for a complex scheme involving bank fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. After release from prison he was involved with an illegal slot machine business that drew raids and enforcement action from Texas authorities and the Security and Exchange Commission. Port Townsend Free Press was contacted by two former Bayside employees who raised ethical concerns about Bayside’s operations. One former employee has filed a complaint with the State Attorney General about Bayside’s business practices and its conflict of interest with another business owned and managed by Kiester. We wrote about those issues here, here and here.

After those articles were published, we received from a man identifying himself as a former business associate of Keister a list of more than 60 lawsuits brought by or against Keister personally, or by or against corporations he owned or managed or in which he was an officer or director. The list was the product of a search of records of nineteen Washington county court systems conducted in 2013. Mr. Keister and/or those corporations were a defendant or third-party defendant in 36 of the listed cases, plaintiff in four. In the remainder of the listed cases he or his controlled or affiliated corporations were identified as a subject of judgment, garnishment, abstract of judgment or tax foreclosure.

Preliminary Talks, Conflict of Interest

Bayside’s letter refers to previous discussions with Kate Dean, Chair of the Board of County Commissioners. Dean has been a member of the Board of Directors of Homeward Bound since 2017, during the time that organization was the owner and developer of the Cherry Street Project. She was a Homeward Bound director when it defaulted on the city’s loan and remains a director to this day. Details of the discussions between Bayside and Dean were not disclosed. In a previous Port Townsend Free Press article, Keister was quoted as saying that Bayside was being pressured by Homeward Bound to get involved in the failed Cherry Street Project.

At the same time that Bayside is seeking nearly a third of the county’s ARPA money, other nonprofits and critical needs are competing for the same funds. Dean will be one of three commissioners deciding how to allocate those significant, but nonetheless limited resources.

 

 

 

 

Jim Scarantino

Jim Scarantino was the editor and founder of Port Townsend Free Press. He is happy in his new role as just a contributor writing on topics of concern to him. He spent the first 25 years of his professional life as a trial attorney, then launched an online investigative news website that broke several national stories. He is also the author of three crime novels. He resides in Jefferson County. See our "About" page for more information.

Comment Guidelines

We welcome contrary viewpoints. Diversity of opinion is sorely lacking in Port Townsend, in part because dissenting views are often suppressed, self-censored and made very unwelcome. Insults, taunts, bullying, all-caps shouting, intimidation, excessive or off-topic posting, and profanity do not qualify as serious discourse, as they deter, dilute, and drown it out. Comments of that nature will be removed and offenders will be blocked. Allegations of unethical, immoral, or criminal behavior need to be accompanied by supporting evidence, links, etc. Please limit comments to 500 words.

8 Comments

  1. Joan Best

    I suggest immediate circulation of petitions to recall Kate Dean from the Board of County Commissioners for dereliction of duty. Is there some other way to stop this? Who has standing, etc.?

    Reply
    • Les Walden

      I’ll sign the petition!

      Reply
  2. Dave

    PUBLIC WORKS:

    If in fact “the land and the building are owned by the City of Port Townsend,” then it would seem that any modification would be considered a Public Works Project subject to laws, rules and regulations including Competitive Bids, Prevailing Wages, Bonds, and Retainage.

    One cannot imagine that any aspect of the reported proposal will comply with those laws, rules and regulations.

    For an overview of laws, rules and regulations pertaining to Public Works Projects specifically for the City of Port Townsend, see https://mrsc.org/procurement/Procurement-City-Results.aspx?jID=180&jName=Port%20Townsend.

    GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS:

    On the other hand, if the City simply gives the project to Bayside, that might violate provisions of the State Constitution which prohibit gifts of public funds. The following is from the State Constitution:

    Article 8, SECTION 7 CREDIT NOT TO BE LOANED. No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.

    Whether the gift could qualify as one “for the necessary support of the poor and infirm” would be subject to legal opinion. But from a layman’s perspective it probably would not qualify.

    TANGLED MESS:

    As reported, this project is a tangled mess however well intentioned. Would it have been too much to ask of city and county officials to have exceptionally well-qualified professionals provide expert opinions prior to taking any actions?

    Reply
  3. Bill Thompson

    Do the city leaders in Port Townsend have any idea that Mr. Keister spent years in federal prison for bank fraud and money laundering? Given the current investigation you documented into Bayside, how could they consider giving him this property and millions of tax dollars?

    Reply
    • Les Walden

      It could be they are corrupt or just plain stupid. Anybody want to buy a bridge across Hood Canal?

      Reply
      • alby baker

        Are we surprised? ‘Tis the “business” of government, per usual, whether local or global. A worldwide criminal event, much of which the citizens wake up just enough to vote for during the promise seasons, aka “elections”, then fall back to willful slumber while the lies & corruptions chug-a-lug ever onward.

        Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

        Still trust government? — just ask any indian.

        Petitions have just as poor a history as “voting”. “America” was intentionally still born right from the starting gun, “founded” on the genocide of one race & culture, and the enslavement of another — heinous exploitations continuing as we speak.
        C’mon folks, it’s a complete do-over. Free the mind, hopefully the rest will follow.
        alby

        Reply
  4. Les Walden

    The thing I missed is the county money is coming from COVID FUNDS. Isn’t the pandamic more important than a wooden structure? Of course the people living in the County don’t need shots and that would do away with voters who would be sick and possibly die so the County Commisioners could push through the unwanted sewage plant. It’s a win/win situation for the County Commishioners. Just a thought.

    Reply
  5. Pat Durbin

    Congratulations on another well researched article. Thank heavens for your voice (and that of other Free Press contribitors ) for standing up to the forces against reason.

    Pat Durbin

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.